Wikiphobia: the latest in the open source. Reading response

·         Wikiphobia: The Latest in Open Source focus on a man that saw a growing problem. Neil Waters, a university teacher sees a continuing problem with his students turning in papers with untrue statements. When he Googleds  the statements he notices that more often than not he finds the false statements on Wikipedia. He takes a few minutes to write a rule saying that students may no longer use this sight for research or site it. The rule is passed with ease and then the rule spreads like wildfire. He is interviewed on the phone, for newspapers, and on the news multiple occasions, his idea was also adopted by other schools and universities.

·         I believe Neil Waters argued his point very well. He gave personal examples of how it was flawed in the classroom setting, he gave examples of how the website itself was flawed and then he gave himself credibility by saying how everyone wanted to interview him/ adopt his policy. During the reading, the author assumes 1. that everyone knows what Wikipedia is and 2. The other history teachers went ahead and assumed that it was understood that a student can’t use Wikipedia when that was clearly not the truth. The only question that I am left with is: is there a way to privatize Wikipedia and close to everyone and only let scholars and professionals be able to make edits to the site?

·         I definitely agree with the author in believing that a student should never use Wikipedia as a source. It is too unreliable and some searches may be outdated. With so many other credible sources on the internet (like the ones we learned about in the library) there is no point to even glance at Wikipedia. It can cloud your mind and lead you astray.

·         I chose to consecutive lines one after the other. “I brought up this modest policy proposal, suitably framed in whereases and be it resolved, at the next meeting of the department, and it was passed within about three minutes, and we moved on to more pressing business. And that, I thought, was that- a good six minutes worth of work, cumulating in clear guidelines for the future.” Even though at first I didn’t know what some of these words meant I chose it because of two things first of all that all he did was take a moment to write a few extra lines to change a policy, and he received a lot of publicity because of it. People were interested in what he had to say on that matter and interviewed him several times. And the second thing I liked about this sentence was how modest he comes off. I can picture him in a meeting with his colleagues saying now that we have that rubbish out of the way, lets move onto more pressing matters. While my explanation isn’t profound by any matter, its just the picture I painted in my head after reading it.